Every April 15th, it’s American tradition to moan and groan about having to pay taxes no matter how much you appreciate the things provided with taxes.

Among other powers, the IRS can audit you (which means they can check over your records), garnish your wages, and imprison you if your trespasses are egregious enough. Nobody likes them, but just about everyone thinks of them as reasonably “fair” – or, at least, if you’re in trouble with the IRS, it’s likely your fault, not theirs.

Or, at least, they did until May 2014.

It all started in July 2008, with a conservative lobbying group called Citizens United. They wanted to run a series of commercials promoting a film targeting Hillary Clinton. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that they couldn’t. The group appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. I won’t bore you with all the particulars, but the outcome is important to the story: In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing it in part. The Court found it was unconstitutional to ban free speech. As a result, the number of nonprofits applying for tax exempt status dramatically increased.

March 2010 was where it all started to go wrong.

Some IRS agents in Cincinnati, Ohio began to target groups based on key words, specifically, words that were overwhelmingly conservative in nature. In August of 2010, the IRS issued a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for specific words, mostly revolving around Tea Party groups (which are wholly conservative). In June 2011, the BOLO increased its targets to include other conservative groups, including phrases like patriots, 9/12, and constitutional literacy. Then acting Director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, was advised of the practice.

And did nothing.

It wasn’t until February 2012, almost two years after the targeting began, that any news of it at all was reported to the media. And it still attracted relatively little notice. On March 22, 2012, then Commissioner of the IRS Doug Shulman testified before Congress that there was absolutely no targeting going on. One could argue that even if the Commissioner of the IRS actually didn’t know what was going on, he should have. (He ended up stepping down at the end of his term, just before the scandal began to garner more media attention and then gave a non-apology apology – if you can call it an apology). On May 10, 2013, Lerner admitted the targeting. And the next day, the IRS released an audit admitting wrong doing. On May 14, 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigations opened a criminal probe into IRS activities. Also in this month, Shulman was informed by previous IRS Commissioner Steven Miller of what had been going on. (Steven Miller would later take Shulman’s place).

(Interestingly enough, it was Attorney General Eric Holder who asked for the investigation. Why interesting? Well, let’s just say that Eric Holder has somecharacterissuesin hisrecord).

Of course, probes don’t necessarily mean there’s anything to see there. And nobody wants groups taking advantage of the rules unfairly. But as we now know, there wasn’t so much a smoking gun in the IRS as there was a five alarm fire. And another grand American tradition began: lawsuits. Very expensive lawsuits.

The probe revealed, among other things, that Cincinnati was not the only office to be affected by the BOLO. Agents in Washington D.C. and at least two offices in California also had the BOLO lists. A number of the conservative groups had to wait for years for their applications to go through while more progressive groups had their applications approved on the spot. It is true that some groups should have been investigated. (In other words, to give credit where credit is due, the IRS was doing its job with some of the applications).

But the biggest surprise was on Wednesday, May 22, 2013. Lois Lerner went before Congress; she said, and I quote: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” She then pled the 5th. (The amendment against self-incrimination). Which is an interesting plea for someone who hasn’t done anything wrong or broken any laws. (She also took this moment to claim she was bad at math. Maybe not the best excuse for someone who is in a position of authority at the IRS). Former Commissioner Shulman claimed he was “absolutely sure” he hadn’t told anybody in the White House about the targeting of groups, despite his visits there (though it does not appear they occurred as often as some have asserted).

When the proverbial shit hit the fan, Americans were, shall we say, displeased.

Finally, things quieted down for a little while until December, when Commissioner Werfel stepped down. January 2014 was when the FBI revealed there would be no criminal charges resulting from their probe. Which made lawmakers unhappy. In January 2014, John Koskinen was appointed IRS Commissioner by President Obama. Which gives us a reason for an interesting aside.

Unless you live in the USA and have taken out a substantial loan, you have probably never heard the name Freddie Mac. Created in 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) known as “Freddie Mac” was engineered to expand the market for mortgages. In 07, Freddie Mac was found to have a significant role in creating a market where houses sold for much more than they were worth and selling houses to people who could not afford them, given their assets and credit. (The reason why they were doing this is fairly complex, and would take a whole series of posts to adequately explain, but essentially boils down to the oldest reason in the book: Money). It paid a record fine for this (still peanuts to the company) and people were fired or resigned.

Why am I telling you this? What does any of this have to do with the IRS?

Congress demanded answers. They called on the National Security Administration (NSA) to release the emails. (Which, funnily enough, the NSA got in trouble for doing not so long ago). If the NSA can produce these emails when the IRS could not (or would not), there’s really only one conclusion we can come to.

The NSA ought to be in charge of collecting taxes.

~~~

(Special thanks to Forbes for their timeline). You can find funny things about the IRS mess at these links:

Okay, so I happened to stumble by this particular article (which you can read below), and I had to control myself from vomiting in my mouth. Most people suspected that Pope Francis would continue his streak of progressive ranting, but it seems that his intentions with regards to exorcisms is exactly not that. Please read the article below.

Medieval superstition: Marching back into the dark ages, Pope Francis has given his formal approval to the barbaric and ignorant practice of exorcism.

The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore

Romano reported Tuesday that the Vatican has formally recognized the International Association of Exorcists, a group of 250 priests in 30 countries who supposedly liberate the faithful from demons.

Under the Pope’s guidance, the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy approved the organization’s statutes and recognized the group under canon law.

AP reports that Pope Francis speaks frequently about the devil, and last year was seen placing his hands on the head of a man supposedly possessed by four demons in what exorcists said was” a prayer of liberation from Satan.”

According to other reports, Pope Francis, unlike his recent predecessors, has a strong focus on the personification of the Devil. Satan is regularly mentioned in his speeches and presentations. Indeed, in one of his first speeches as Pope, Francis made clear his view about the personification of evil, declaring: “Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the Devil.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines exorcism as “the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from persons, places, or things, which are believed to be possessed or infested by them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice”

The belief that individuals are possessed by demons is silly nonsense. Yet this silly nonsense can have grave implications for the mentally ill. Mental illness is real. For Pope Francis to embrace the ludicrous idea that people are possessed by demonic forces is to deny in part the scientific reality of mental illness.

There is nothing progressive or life affirming by approving the medieval and superstitious practice of exorcism. Demons and evil spirits are figments of the imagination. To pretend that exorcism is something other than cheap and tawdry religious smoke and mirrors is to take a vacation from reality.

Promoting exorcism for people experiencing real pain and suffering is at once both dishonest and unethical. By giving his approval to exorcisms, Pope Francis is rejecting modern science, and embracing an ugly, ignorant and harmful religious superstition.

What’s next, Francis, the Spanish Inquisition?

I cant believe this nonsense. As the article states this is an archaic and regressive stance, one that is dangerous and harmful to the victims of illnesses that are commonly construed as possessions, like epilepsy. Maybe the Catholic Church should focus more on resolving its internal scandals of pedophile clerics rather than worrying about driving out their fictional monsters.

Most people these days are connected to a social media outlet in one form or other. Facebook is the most predominant and renowned social media service and thus holds a large archive of members. That being said, those who use it obviously know that their data, and personal information is out there for the public, Facebook and ultimately any government agency who asks them for their caches to see. We all know this, but that is not what people are angry about right now.

Facebook has been reported to have conducted a study in which it analyzed over 700,000 of its users timelines to see how negative posts can affect other user posts. They claim that they want to see how negativity on Facebook may affect its user base and are only doing it to improve their service. However, aside from their official statements, this has sent people into an anxious panic. Do you think they are justified?

Additionally you can also read Facebook’s editor’s thoughts on the whole subject HERE.

Do you think that people’s worries are warranted? Do you think that the simple nature of putting your information online makes it forfeit to anyone who sees it? Many of these experiments need individuals to remain unaware that they are being subjected to it, does that makes this right? Facebook can see our posts regardless, should we care that they analyze them for negative terms? Or anything for that matter?

I’d like to know what you think about this whole issue. But I want to you to put this issue into the larger framework of internet privacy. Do you think that such a thing can can exist? Or that it even should exist?

By: Steven Umbrello – Owner & Executive Editor

Related articles

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens’ firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” – George Washington’s address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress

Although the video is a bit old now, I nonetheless want to share it with you. It documents the inception and application of a new special weapons system that virtually eliminates much of the time, money and energy put into training snipers. This new precision tracking firearm is made by a Texas-based company (naturally) called TrackingPoint Solutions and it can be put into the hands of virtually anyone, whether or not they ever shot a gun before, and can be accurate at over 1000 yards.

What makes the weapon system so accurate is a revolutionary scope which is attached to an electronic trigger. The sight emits a laser which ‘tags’ the target and bounces back to the scope 52 times per second. This tells the rifle the wind speed, elevation, humidity, and all the other factors that trained marksmen have to take into account when making a long distance shot. All the user has to do is match up the reticule with the marked area and squeeze the trigger. The gun, having an electronic trigger, will not fire unless the shooter is aligned with the target, making for a virtually guaranteed hit.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson:

Before we continue it would probably be most prudent if you watched the short documentary on the weapon system below so that we can be on even ground:

I can’t help but feel that such a simple weapon that is so powerful, especially the .338 Lapua variant (very big!) that can be used by virtually anyone, raises some ethical issues! For trained military and police snipers to be accurate and hit a target at 1000 yards usually takes years of practice. This new system takes that time, effort and financial burden away.

“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.” – John Adams

Military and police departments are already inquiring into purchasing large quantities of this revolutionary device. The real question is, should civilians be allowed to own such a system? Some would argue that they don’t want ordinary people wielding the same power that the military or police have. I think that this is a good point. But others would argue the entire opposite, that the people should be empowered to defend themselves from their would-be ‘defenders’. To be honest, I don’t see this weapon’s system bringing up any more ethical questions that the gun debate in most countries hasn’t brought up already. My questions are what do you think about this new system? What is your position on gun control, or lack thereof? Should the military and police be the only ones to own powerful weapons, or should the people be on even ground with them?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands.” – Thomas Jefferson

Leave all your thoughts in the comment section below, I’d love to hear your position on the matter!

On May 20, a female English professor from the Arizona State University was aggressively tossed and detained for failing to show identification to an officer. The officer claimed that she was jaywalking and asked her to present I.D. After refusing the officer, he sought to handcuff her, but she resisted. After he threw her to the ground, her dress lifted and she claimed that the officer moved to grab her groin. Once the officer and his partner lifted her off the ground, she kicked the officer in the shin. The professor was charged with aggravated assault….all because she didn’t show her I.D. Watch the video below:

A private citizen should not have to show their identification to a public official just because they were ‘ordered’ to….’ordered’ are you serious? The more I listen and watch the news the more I am coming to believe that the United States, and many other western countries, are moving closer to an authoritarian style of government. I don’t like what I am seeing, and I don’t like where everything is going. This is one incident amongst a host of similar encounters with police. People read or watch these stories and they see how bad it is, but they never take action, they never lobby for change. Others simply try justify this police state nonsense by citing the necessity of law and order police tactics….bullshit!

“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” ― Benjamin Franklin

This is what police look like now. A pseudo-military

Studies show that law and order police tactics only serve to criminalize non criminals and stigmatize offenders. It increases rates of recidivism and focuses on retributive, punitive measures of ‘justice’. The focus should be on community policing and restorative justice measures which are proven to reconcile those offended and reduce rates of recidivism.

All of this stems from the lack of educated police officers, the motives of the departments and the privatized, for-profit incarceration facilities that have literally turned convicted criminals into ‘customers’.

Earlier last year Vladimir Putin warned Obama about the consequences of his support over the bio-agricultural empire Monsanto and how the corporations’ products are causing a global ‘bee-apocalypse’.

“The shocking minutes relating to President Putin’s meeting this past week with US Secretary of State John Kerry reveal the Russian leaders “extreme outrage” over the Obama regimes continued protection of global seed and plant bio-genetic giants Syngenta and Monsanto in the face of a growing “bee apocalypse” that the Kremlin warns “will most certainly” lead to world war.

According to these minutes, released in the Kremlin today by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNRE), Putin was so incensed over the Obama regime’s refusal to discuss this grave matter that he refused for three hours to even meet with Kerry, who had traveled to Moscow on a scheduled diplomatic mission, but then relented so as to not cause an even greater rift between these two nations”

What is your opinion on Putin’s outrage? What is your position on monsanto and the growing controversy surrounding this American company? Personally I support Putin in this quest. The bees of course propagate pollen and are essential to agriculture, and their exterminate of course has some serious global consequences. Please let me know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The idea of a coming-of-age ceremony has always been a bit strange to me as an atheist. Sure, I attended more than my fair share of Bat and Bar Mitzvahs in middle school. But it always struck me as odd for us to pretend that someone “became an adult” on a particular day, rather than […]

It’s The Matrix meets Braid: a first-person shooter video game “where the time moves only when you move.” You can stare at the bullets streaking toward you as long as you like, but moving to dodge them causes the enemies and bullets to move forward in time as well. The game is called SUPERHOT, and […]

Imagine that you have a big task coming up that requires an unknown amount of willpower – you might have enough willpower to finish, you might not. You’re gearing up to start when suddenly you see a delicious-looking cupcake on the table. Do you indulge in eating it? According to psychology research and decision-theory models, […]

People talk about how Bayes’ Rule is so central to rationality, and I agree. But given that I don’t go around plugging numbers into the equation in my daily life, how does Bayes actually affect my thinking? A short answer, in my new video below: (This is basically what the title of this […]